PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

134
It is true that the resulting policy discourses are indeed more professional and at
the same time largely de-radicalized and surprisingly consensual. Professionals and
experts from the governmental and non-governmental sectors are now discoursing
amongst themselves. Political differences of opinion remain relevant, but all actors take
recourse in scientific research and expert conclusions to back their arguments. Note, for
example the argumentation presented by the sustainable transport NGO T&E (2000:iii):
A recent overview by a panel of leading experts in this field has concluded that
there are in fact no automatic economic or employment benefits from [transport
infrastructure investments]. The assumptions and prejudices held by Europe’s
decision makers [with regard to the relationship between transport investments and
regional economic development] are, in fact, incorrect.
[Emphasis in the original.] 28
Such continued reliance on scientific experts runs counter to Beckmann’s
conclusion that decision-making is now significantly influenced by less privileged, nonexpert
decision-makers. So we are not witnessing the rise of the lay experts or, as
Beckmann calls them, “layperts” as additional stakeholders in environmental decisionmaking,
as much as an increasing reliance on privileged (academic) expert knowledge for
the solution of environmental problems. This is also congruent with Giddens’
interpretation of reflexive modernity as being dominated by expert systems. The
phenomenon is particularly apparent for discourses assessing the environmental risks
inherent in current auto-dependent transport systems. 29
formation (political parties, parliaments) and often lacking the protection of the law” (Beck 1992, as quoted
in Beckmann 2001:54). This observation is also relevant for my analysis of Pan-European transport policy.
28 For a more complete excerpt from this text, see the “cohesion” section of chapter 4 on transport policy
storylines.
29 Note that Giddens and Beck indeed provide different answers to the question of who the key medium of
the reflexive modernization is. As Beck clarifies (1994:175): “Unlike Giddens [who emphasizes scientific
expert knowledge], I assert the thesis … that it is not knowledge, but rather non-knowledge which is the
key medium of ‘reflexive’ modernization. To put it in another way: we are living in an age of side effects.”